In a rather unusual move, both Google and Apple have publicly backed the fight against "Proposition 8", both by words as well as by donation. Proposition 8 is an initiative measure in the state of California that would ban same-sex marriages in California by amending the Constitution of the state to include that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Both companies gave out their reasoning for supporting the fight against 'Prop 8'.

Proposition 8 is an initiative measure in the state of California that would ban same-sex marriages in California by amending the Constitution of the state to include that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".

How ridiculously unnecessary!

The law meant something specific when it was created and accepted. Democratic forms of governments have orderly processes which allow the populace to change the meaning of the laws. The problem here is that, instead of actually building public support to change the laws through due process, the left got some judges to pretend that the law meant something else, and now Californians in favor of the law's meaning actually have to create a proposition to make sure the laws granting marital status actually apply as they did before the judges started pretending otherwise.

Why pretend that the law means something other than what was agreed when it was created and accepted by due process? You on the left do have a legitimate means of changing the law at your disposal, instead of just convincing a few people in one court.

I can do nothing but applaud these moves by Google and Apple. As someone who holds unconditional equality in the highest possible regard, the equality of all men is of the utmost importance. Whether you are black, white, or polka dot; whether you like boys, girls, or both; whether you believe in God, Allah, or the Cosmic Goat - we are all equal, and it is not the task of the state to tell people that they are not.

What about daughters who have sex with their mothers? Shouldn't they be equal? What about siblings who sleep together? A man who is in love with a minor? The idea that *any* two people in love means the relationship should be treated as a good thing is just completely ridiculous.

Why pretend that society can't have boundaries on what is and is not marriage? Why give homosexuality special treatment, compared to incest, polygamy, bestiality, and other sexual perversions? What's the difference between them, if you take your personal beliefs entirely out of the equation?

Nor the state, not the church define marriage - the people who marry do. I am proud that we in The Netherlands realised that as one of the first countries. We got the ball rolling, I hope Californians will give it another push.

You are right about the state and religion not being able to define marriage. But you are wrong about marriage being the unconditional amalgam of whatever any two people in love want it to be. Talk to someone involved in polygamy or incest and see if you *really* believe, as you claimed, that any two people in love ought to be able to alter society's definition of marriage. The whole idea is ridiculous, unless you only consider love you *already* defined legitimate as being the only kinds of relationships you'll accept as determining what you believe marriage is. That's just circular logic.

Thing is -- and I'm saying this because it needs to be said -- no one can change the definition of marriage. It is what it is: the union of the sexes, one man and one woman. Not two men plus a goat, or three women, or two inanimate objects. Fact is, what you would call "heterosexual" marriage is actually just what society established as a necessary construct for dealing with the natural progression, in male + female relationships, of romance -> sex -> pregnancy. Forcing society as a whole to accept an inherently irrational idea like homosexual "marriage" will only work for so long, until it's simply discarded by future generations.

You can try to sell me on the nonsense that homosexual individuals are born that way -- as if this is somehow an equality issue instead of merely being about society's establishing certain boundaries around sex and sexuality -- but it won't work. Fact is, in terms of who's capable of experiencing pleasure with whom, everyone's bisexual; the difference in individuals' sexual preferences is psychological: their past experiences, their beliefs, how they've chosen to respond, what they're willing to accept, etc.

The thing is, marriage and this homosexual "marriage" concept you're requiring everyone to accept are not the same thing, nor are they even on the same level, and forcing everyone who, like me, isn't willing to pretend that they are equal just creates more tension.

People can start the name-calling, the allusions to Hitler, or whatever, now if they really want to get back at me. But the fact is that just a short time ago homosexuality was considered just as bad as incest or bestiality, and I'd appreciate being able to talk to someone who is willing to discuss, on a rational level, why these concepts are different or similar.

From the article:

While we respect the strongly held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality.

There's been no proof that people are born with a certain sexual orientation, and I've seen all I need to see to the contrary (e.g. high profile "gay" people changing sexual orientation to "straight" or "bi" and being happy about it), so the premise here is incorrect. It's not a case of being born differently (and therefore locked into a particular lifestyle if one is to be happy); homosexuality, by contrast, is a case of what choices society as a whole will accept.

We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 - we should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.

The mission statement is false on its face. The homosexual rights activists are not seeking existing rights for themselves; they are seeking to have judges grant (1) new rights (2) for everyone. Specifically, prior to the judicial usurpation, the law (2) allowed no one (1) to marry anyone of the same sex. Anyone want to try to deny that hetero Hollywood celebrities won't use same-sex marriage as a publicity stunt? Anyone want to claim that the state allowed incestuous marriages? It's a case of new rights for everyone, not just people who identify as homosexual or bisexual at the time when they obtain "marriage" licenses.